Dataset Information

A framework for identifying treatment-covariate interactions in individual participant data network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stratified medicine seeks to identify patients most likely to respond to treatment. Individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) models have greater power than individual trials to identify treatment-covariate interactions (TCIs). Treatment-covariate interactions contain "within" and "across" trial interactions, where the across-trial interaction is more susceptible to confounding and ecological bias.

Methods

We considered a network of IPD from 37 trials (5922 patients) for cervical cancer (2394 events), where previous research identified disease stage as a potential interaction covariate. We compare 2 models for NMA with TCIs: (1) 2 effects separating within- and across-trial interactions and (2) a single effect combining within- and across-trial interactions. We argue for a visual assessment of consistency of within- and across-trial interactions and consider more detailed aspects of interaction modelling, eg, common vs trial-specific effects of the covariate. This leads us to propose a practical framework for IPD NMA with TCIs.

Results

Following our framework, we found no evidence in the cervical cancer network for a treatment-stage interaction on the basis of the within-trial interaction. The NMA provided additional power for an across-trial interaction over and above the pairwise evidence. Following our proposed framework, we found that the within- and across-trial interactions should not be combined.

Conclusion

Across-trial interactions are susceptible to confounding and ecological bias. It is important to separate the sources of evidence to check their consistency and identify which sources of evidence are driving the conclusion. Our framework provides practical guidance for researchers, reducing the risk of unduly optimistic interpretation of TCIs.

SUBMITTER: Freeman SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6159880 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Stratified medicine utilizes individual-level covariates that are associated with a differential treatment effect, also known as treatment-covariate interactions. When multiple trials are available, meta-analysis is used to help detect true treatment-covariate interactions by combining their data. Meta-regression of trial-level information is prone to low power and ecological bias, and therefore, individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses are preferable to examine interactions utilizing individual-level information. However, one-stage IPD models are often wrongly specified, such that interactions are based on amalgamating within- and across-trial information. We compare, through simulations and an applied example, fixed-effect and random-effects models for a one-stage IPD meta-analysis of time-to-event data where the goal is to estimate a treatment-covariate interaction. We show that it is crucial to centre patient-level covariates by their mean value in each trial, in order to separate out within-trial and across-trial information. Otherwise, bias and coverage of interaction estimates may be adversely affected, leading to potentially erroneous conclusions driven by ecological bias. We revisit an IPD meta-analysis of five epilepsy trials and examine age as a treatment effect modifier. The interaction is -0.011 (95% CI: -0.019 to -0.003; p?=?0.004), and thus highly significant, when amalgamating within-trial and across-trial information. However, when separating within-trial from across-trial information, the interaction is -0.007 (95% CI: -0.019 to 0.005; p?=?0.22), and thus its magnitude and statistical significance are greatly reduced. We recommend that meta-analysts should only use within-trial information to examine individual predictors of treatment effect and that one-stage IPD models should separate within-trial from across-trial information to avoid ecological bias. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Project description:BackgroundSome studies have suggested a link between antihypertensive medication and cancer, but the evidence is so far inconclusive. Thus, we aimed to investigate this association in a large individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from Jan 1, 1966, to Sept 1, 2019, to identify potentially eligible randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing one blood pressure lowering drug class with a placebo, inactive control, or other blood pressure lowering drug. We also required that trials had at least 1000 participant years of follow-up in each treatment group. Trials without cancer event information were excluded. We requested individual participant data from the authors of eligible trials. We pooled individual participant-level data from eligible trials and assessed the effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), β blockers, calcium channel blockers, and thiazide diuretics on cancer risk in one-stage individual participant data and network meta-analyses. Cause-specific fixed-effects Cox regression models, stratified by trial, were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). The primary outcome was any cancer event, defined as the first occurrence of any cancer diagnosed after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018099283).Findings33 trials met the inclusion criteria, and included 260 447 participants with 15 012 cancer events. Median follow-up of included participants was 4·2 years (IQR 3·0-5·0). In the individual participant data meta-analysis comparing each drug class with all other comparators, no associations were identified between any antihypertensive drug class and risk of any cancer (HR 0·99 [95% CI 0·95-1·04] for ACEIs; 0·96 [0·92-1·01] for ARBs; 0·98 [0·89-1·07] for β blockers; 1·01 [0·95-1·07] for thiazides), with the exception of calcium channel blockers (1·06 [1·01-1·11]). In the network meta-analysis comparing drug classes against placebo, we found no excess cancer risk with any drug class (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·93-1·09] for ACEIs; 0·99 [0·92-1·06] for ARBs; 0·99 [0·89-1·11] for β blockers; 1·04 [0·96-1·13] for calcium channel blockers; 1·00 [0·90-1·10] for thiazides).InterpretationWe found no consistent evidence that antihypertensive medication use had any effect on cancer risk. Although such findings are reassuring, evidence for some comparisons was insufficient to entirely rule out excess risk, in particular for calcium channel blockers.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, Oxford Martin School.